to think the state should pay part of our private school fees?

[wolvesarejustoldendaydogs]

Don't jump down my throat! It's just a thought.

State schools are overcrowded and there aren't enough good ones. Private schools are expensive.

What if every child had a right to have their state school 'payment' (whatever it costs per child per year') paid to a private school? Obviously parents would have to top-up (probably a considerable amount).

That would create a bit of a market, with more choice, making private schools more affordable and state ones less overcrowded.

Or is it a stupid idea for a reason I will think of soon after pressing 'POST'?

I believe all children should have access to a good education too Fay, and I don't believe it should be dependant on wealth either. But I don't pay for private school and my children do have access to a good education.

I think all children already have access to a good education, the thing that makes the difference is not the schools, it's the parents attitude to education.

You could put a child in a top private school, but if they are still going home to parents who don't value education, who don't hear them read, dont check their homework, don't support the teachers, don't attend parents evening, don't have high expectations of their children, those children are still likely to be unsuccessful academically.

I think this conversation is looking at the wrong cure for the problem.

Whatmeworry- of course you can. And there are plenty (but not enough) comprehensives offering an academically rigorous education to their students now. More comps could if they didn't have the best talent in the local area creamed off to private schools and grammars, where they exist.

No country on this earth runs a compehensive system for its academically most able, they all select in one way or another. There is a sound reason for that.

As to "creaming off", the % going private is tiny, you are placing a huge reliance on that minority making any difference if they come into the compehensive system. They are far, far more likely to be swamped by the (very different) needs of the majority.

And lets assume those returning parents do then start to influence the system - are you prepared togive them what they will want? Discipline, intellectual rigour, competition, non tolerance of underachievement, removal of disruptive children, unremitting focus on excellence, huge parental input outside school hours as a basic etc etc

I think it's something like 7% of children in private schools and a further 3% in state grammars. So it's 10% that would be coming into the state sector. A reasonable sized minority. But, crucially, a minority that tends to have the best educated parents and parents who are interested in and supportive of their education (because they either pays lots of money for it or have assisted their children in preparation for the 11+). Those parents are key in improving state schools- at the moment they aren't interested in state education because they can opt out of it.

Why are these private schools kids so special in your world? Why are their needs so very different from children in state schools. Why would they be swamped by the majority? Why will state school do for my children (and 90% of other children) but not the child currently in private schools?

There is no reason why there can't be intellectual rigour, competition, non tolerance of underachievement etc etc in a fully comprehensive school. I'm not against streaming in a comp- as long as movement between the streams is possible. And I think you do the majority of parents a disservice to suggest they are not interested in those things for their children too.

Oh, and it's not true no other country has comprehensive schools. US high schools are comprehensive with honours classes for high performing students. (although I know they have private schools there too).

It's not about children with interested parents being so special that they deserve something extra. It's not my place or my children's place to raise standards for other disinterested parents. I think you are overestimating the difference already interested parents could make. They already make a huge difference as seen in the examples of good state schools and bad state schools.

The key to improving bad state schools is getting the disaffected parents interested and valuing their schools and children's education. That won't happen by abolishing private or grammar schools.

Like I said, you can give children the best education in the world, if they are still going home to parents who see that education as valueless, it will make no difference whatsoever. It certainly won't make enough difference to justify getting rid of the countries best schools while having to spend a huge amount more money.

why will state schools do for my children (and 90% of other children) but not the child currently in private school?

State schools would do for those children if there were enough places for them. That's the whole point. Children are not so disadvantaged by being educated by the state that they have anything to fear from parents who choose to pay for almost the same thing.

Oh, and it's not true no other country has comprehensive schools. US high schools are comprehensive with honours classes for high performing students.

I've lived in the States, it is selective - school excellence there is mainly defined by house price and their equivalent of council taxes in the main, and in NYC for example the top high schools like Stuyvesant are selective by examination.

Outraged- we fundamentally disagree with what being part of society is about. You see, I do think "it's my place or my children's place to raise standards". It's not about disinterested parents. It's about their children who have no choice about who they're born to. As a society, it's those children we should be looking out for. Those children deserve equal access to good schools.

Whatmeworry- I don't think you can use NYC as representative of all high schools in the US. NYC is a very particular market, which will also be slewed by virtue of the high number of private schools there. There are plenty of comprehensive high schools in the US.

But we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think we can improve state schools while private schools and grammars exist. You think we can. It hasn't happened so far has it?

Outraged- children who are educated in the state system are disadvantaged by the 7% of children who opt out of the system and go private. It creates an unequal playing field. 50% of Oxbridge entrants are from 7% of the schools. how is that fair?

People who are only seeing abolishing private schools as resulting in a couple more wealthy people in each class are being short-sighted.

If the children of every single wealthy person in the country went to state schools, that's an awful lot of rich and powerful people with a new interest in making state education better. Money and resources would be found.

People banging on about grammar schools being brought back - why were they abolished in the first place if the system was great?

OP - you are describing what happens in France. Private schools are subsidised by the state - teachers' salaries are met by the state and there is a state contribution to buildings maintenance etc. The downside is that private schools must keep to the (highly restrictive) national curriculum and it is very hard for them to manage their staff. But they do get to select their pupils.

The French state system is fully comprehensive from 3 to 15.

Exactly, noblegiraffe. Exactly.

And people knock comprehensives schools, but we've never had a truly comprehensive system in this country because of the existence of private schools and grammar schools (in the areas they still exist). The state school system is hugely affected in some areas (e.g. parts of Bristol, parts of London etc) by the existence of the latter.

Bonsoir, the state system can't be fully comprehensive if private schools exist.

First of all, private schools follow the same NC as state schools. Secondly, the state schools always used to be better than the private schools (which were places children ended up in when they had failed in the state system) but that has changed, principally because no one with a half a brain thinks that comprehensive education does children justice.

I can assure you I do have half a brain. Or at least Cambridge thought so when it awarded me my two degrees. I just happen to disagree with you.

Maybe we should get rid of all alternative methods of schooling then so everyone is equal and has equal access to all. So, no home schooling, particularly if someone buys in a tutor and gives their child an unfair advantage. No church schools, or if there is then people who live in catchment get first choice, regardless of belief or lack of. People that have moved house locally in the past year or so to get their child into a better school still get their child sent back to original school, ( or bear financial penalty if it's deemed they moved in order to give their child an unfair advantage.)). After all we want schools to be the same, not have the so called 'nice children' creamed off the top. People moving to try and get something better will have a knock on effect on the original schools. And then finally I would be happy to get rid of the private schools. How's about that?

At our private primary in a pleasant northern town, none of the parents are rich or powerful, actually. Mostly they're things like accountants, lawyers, managers in medium-size businesses etc. etc.

Good jobs, but nothing that you wouldn't find in every state school. And the involvement they have in the school is stuff like helping out on school trips, coming to plays and sports day etc. etc., running cake sales etc. Again, pretty standard stuff.

I don't think they'd make any difference or be at all noticed if they were to join parents at the closest state primary (which is excellent). From conversation, they mostly chose the private primary for the same reasons we were drawn to it - for the fact that it is very small (though class sizes are about 20-22 so not enormously different to state) with a lovely family feel and very gentle and caring. Until we saw it, we were totally happy with the state option. (And, as a bonus, it is much closer to our house than the state school).

Fees are only slightly higher than the figures being quoted here that the state spends per child.

I think when the words 'private school' are mentioned, people often picture something like Eton, when of course the majority are nothing like that.

But wolves- you are still buying your children an advantage. You wouldn't pay the fees if you didn't think you were getting something for your money. Why shouldn't children whose families can't afford the fees not have access to a school that "has a lovely family feel and is very gentle and caring".

I don't picture something like Eton- although clearly there are a number of schools in that league. I went to a private school that was 'nothing special' (apart from the small classes and discipline)- so I understand what some parents are paying for.

I just object to some parents being able to buy their children an advantage in something as fundamental as education. I want fairer access to schools for all children regardless of their parents ability to pay. (But I am a realist, I know it won't happen because political power is vested in those who benefit from the system and don't want to change the status quo).

The taxes you pay isn't about the services you get directly back here and now. They make sure that you live in a safe & sane society.

I pay for the education system because it means that the people who... put the right fuel into the pump at the petrol station, calculated the VAT on my take-away pizza, decided on the quality of the ingredients that went into that pizza, inspected the hygiene at the restaurant where that pizza was made, paved the road between me and the restaurant, installed the lights on the streets & kept them working, will drive the ambulance if I get into an accident & have to go to hospital, will block off the road & haul me out of the car after my accident, will be putting the IV into my arms at the hospital... I want all of those people to do their roles correctly. Cheap at the price, really, whatever taxes I might be paying but not get back directly, just because I have a DC in private ed.

(*Never mind who is going to wipe my bottom & the dribble off my chin in the nursing home ).

Edith
I appreciate you were not justifying faith schools but simply explaining how we got to the position where we now have them.

I would have less of an issue with faith schools if they were only allowed to ringfence the same proportion of places as the proportion of their contribution to the running costs of the school.

I am no expert in school finances but I assume the capital costs in any one year would be unlikely to be more that 1/3 of the total running costs. So the church is contributing c3% of the total cost of running the school but ringfencing 50% (or sometimes more) of the places. That's pretty impressive leverage on your investment!

The other issue which is bourne out by the ESL figures that I posted for some of my nearest schools that non-Christians in the area where I live are more likely to be from ethnic minorities / minority communities (significant North African, Asian and sub saharan African Muslim populations). I accept that in some areas perhaps with a high African Caribbean population this would not be the case. So where I live the effect is that ethnic minorities have less school choice.

It does seem strange that my children's school choices are being restricted because of a)DH's place of birth / religion and b) a historic anomaly.

p.s. I fully acknowledge that I am in a very fortunate position that I can make choices for my children that aren't available to most people as I can afford private education.

Most of our friends can neither get into the faith schools nor afford private education.

wolves - you are wrong.

My children are at school at an inner london primary and really there are not many graduate parents there. It CERTAINLY isn't the majority of parents of children in my dc's classes.

And saying the parents at your school aren't rich and powerful - the average salary in the UK is about 25K a year. And housing is expensive. Most families have two or more children. That puts private schooling out of reach of most families. DH and I have a household income of 75K a year and we certainly couldn't afford to pay 10k a year in school fees per child (we have three children) and still pay the mortgage.

In any case, it's not just about what parents bring. It's about what the children themselves bring to school. As a teacher I can vouch that the quality of education that takes place improves as the proportion of bright and articulate students in the class increases. It's not just teachers teaching, it's children as well. They learn from each other!

You will know this yourself from your own experiences of education.

Yes, Fayrazzled of course you are right, I am buying my children an advantage (or their grandparents are, to be precise). In this case, I think it's the advantage of being able to choose the school that is (I think) most suited to their personalities locally. And, yes, that is indeed unfair that everyone can't do that.

It is also unfair that two (possibly all three) of my children have a serious health condition that will affect the way they lead their lives. And that they have a parent with a (totally different) health condition which limits the activities they can do.

It is also unfair that some children in the area live in much bigger, nicer houses. And it is unfair that our house is bigger and nicer than those of many other children. And it is unfair that I feed them high quality food compared to the food some children eat. And it is unfair that I am not a great cook unlike some of their friends' mums, so what I make with that food isn't always brilliant.

Isn't one of the main things we all do with our money is buy our children advantages of one kind or another? I don't know how one can legislate against that, or whether we'd want to?

I suppose I feel that with the really important stuff - like education and health - that I want everyone to have a good option. But I'm not sure it's right or realistic to say that people can't spend their money on improving their options even further (as they see it - whether it is indeed better might be debatable). Otherwise, what are we all bothering to earn money for?

Shagmund - yes, all good points. My own primary school was a tiny state (faith) school with a very mixed demographic. Funnily enough, in some ways I think I am trying to replicate my very happy experience there by going private - it's the smallness of the school that makes it feel the same.